Hey, guys, maybe we could end the pissing contest, and get this thread back on track?
That sounds fair to me...
Ya know Broos I can understand your insistence on the supremacy of tightly controlled scientific testing, though as Mr. Glesser pointed out, it doesn't always translate into "real world" results when human or other imprecise factors are added. Just the simple notion that lab testing isn't always a perfect indicator of performance in the hands of people, implies that both are necessary to get an accurate assessment. Almost every day on Bladeforums we see people use the word test to describe less than scientifically controlled testing, heck I've seen some threads with the word test in their title that are nothing more than pictures of various people chopping on trees

One common test that is referenced is how many deer I was able to process before my knife went dull. Yep, that's accurate

But people who share these findings aren't usually jumped on for pushing inaccurate conclusions upon unsuspecting and gullible members, even when they use it in a comparative way. Why is that?
In the absence of a controlled lab environment, I don't see what is all that bad about using task specific goals as measurement guidelines. Hammer knife through wood, hammer knife through cinder block, stab tip in metal. It is to a large degree quite repeatable. Noss could easily add precision to his tests, e.g. make sure he is using the same materials for each test, my sure the temperature in the workshop is the same. Doing this would be beneficial IMO. What I don't understand in your position is why does it have to be all or nothing? Before the scientific method was firmly established and math developed to model the world and tools built to accurately measure forces, man was still learning and improving.
As far as what I've learned from these tests, well, I have more "experience" than I did before regarding the behavior of various production knives used in extreme ways. Is all the information 100% accurate, nope, it never could be, even with scientific testing, inaccuracies and false conclusions are always a possibility. So let's start another thread here and try to come up with some more scientific approaches to A) defining knife toughness and B) implementing a scientific test for it. Whaddya say?
I've got to throw theonew a bone here. (Get it? Bone? Dog avatar? Oh nevermind.) His was a conciliatory post in many ways, and it was a smart one.
I've long thought that TGHM could have done things better from the get-go. A lot of the negativity here stems from his own adolescent-like proceedings as he began destroying knives, video-taping the results, and garnering some attention. I don't need to rehash it all; the threads are there. More on point, I recognize the difficulty of scientific testing by an individual with limited resources. But even if noss4 doesn't claim to do anything scientific, we see him making very suggestive cross comparisons. As I've contended all along, his standards are simply lacking.
My suggestions for improvement are as follows. Do I think noss4 would follow them? Of course not. He's a showman more than anything. But if someone else were to start "tests" that subjectively try to get at some sense of toughness (rather than "measure" of toughness), here are some possibilities.
1) Get rid of "testing" and knife "tests." The term polarizes, and you're blind if you don't see how, in this very thread, that simple linguistic choice has an effect. Admit you're doing very subjective reviews, and even explain to an audience all the factors that make the performances subjective. In other words, offer up some reflective disclosure beyond something like "This is what I do. It stands for itself." This includes discussions/reflections that consider qualities like Rockwell, grain structure, stress risers, etc.
2) Get rid of the comparative ratings. They're subjective, and they simply serve to inflame, especially when somebody's revered knife brand only receives two Rotating Swords of Doom. Since the knives have not been subjected to the same standards, any such comparisons appear arbitrary at best.
3) If you insist on doing some kind of comparative report, then
at least make some effort to do the exact same things to knives across the board. Same number of chops, same number of stabs, same number of hammer blows, and
at least try to use similar force. There might be a clearly defined heuristic that guides every single review you do.
4) It would be interesting if you could practice blows, measure their force, and see if you're at least swinging a hammer with roughly the same force at a given time. We talk about accuracy in rifles, and of course, there's an element of human performance there too. But at least we try to put something on paper (groups) that gives us some indication of the combined ability of a shooter and a gun. noss4 has no such indicators.
That's just a start. theonew's notions about temperature strike me as a reasonable consideration as well.
Edited to add: The point about materials is a good one too. While wood is never going to be exactly the same, there's a big difference between a gardening post that's been sitting in your back yard for a year and a nice, soft 2x4 from Home Despot.
.